1. Information is solely caused by intelligence.2. A is information.3. Therefore intelligence is the cause of A.

I think my wording is a bit clearer.

Problem of induction and all that.

1. Information is solely caused by intelligence. (In our very limited experience). And for the level of information required (does not the sound of the wind whistling through the trees tell me its windy?) we can safely replace 'Intelligence" with "man", which is both more honest and precise, but removes their opportunity for analogy wankery.

If they were to try and robustly define 'information' and 'intelligence', one suspects there are a flock of black swans waiting to pounce.

Venema's latter posts in the series discuss evidence that could count as weak, or circumstantial, evidence for common descent -- evidence such as high levels of human / ape genetic similarities. At most, however, this evidence shows circumstantial evidence for common ancestry. It says nothing about the information-generative abilities of random mutation and natural selection. Venema would have done well to heed Behe's advice in The Edge of Evolution that "modern Darwinists point to evidence of common descent and erroneously assume it to be evidence of the power of random mutation." In fact, if we factor into the analysis the possibility of common design of functional genetic programs, Venema's evidence doesn't even strongly point to common descent. But Venema ignores the possibility of common design.

Amusing that Casey, the lawyer, cites Behe, the molecular biologist on the power of random Mutation, then promptly sidesteps the inconvenient fact that Behe accepts common descent.

Venema's latter posts in the series discuss evidence that could count as weak, or circumstantial, evidence for common descent -- evidence such as high levels of human / ape genetic similarities. At most, however, this evidence shows circumstantial evidence for common ancestry. It says nothing about the information-generative abilities of random mutation and natural selection. Venema would have done well to heed Behe's advice in The Edge of Evolution that "modern Darwinists point to evidence of common descent and erroneously assume it to be evidence of the power of random mutation." In fact, if we factor into the analysis the possibility of common design of functional genetic programs, Venema's evidence doesn't even strongly point to common descent. But Venema ignores the possibility of common design.

Amusing that Casey, the lawyer, cites Behe, the molecular biologist on the power of random Mutation, then promptly sidesteps the inconvenient fact that Behe accepts common descent.

--------------"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

Venema's latter posts in the series discuss evidence that could count as weak, or circumstantial, evidence for common descent -- evidence such as high levels of human / ape genetic similarities. At most, however, this evidence shows circumstantial evidence for common ancestry. It says nothing about the information-generative abilities of random mutation and natural selection. Venema would have done well to heed Behe's advice in The Edge of Evolution that "modern Darwinists point to evidence of common descent and erroneously assume it to be evidence of the power of random mutation." In fact, if we factor into the analysis the possibility of common design of functional genetic programs, Venema's evidence doesn't even strongly point to common descent. But Venema ignores the possibility of common design.

Amusing that Casey, the lawyer, cites Behe, the molecular biologist on the power of random Mutation, then promptly sidesteps the inconvenient fact that Behe accepts common descent.

Also amusing that Casey, the lawyer, doesn't understand what circumstantial evidence is. "Circumstantial" is not synonymous with "weak." Cases can, and very often are, proven beyond a reasonable doubt through circumstantial evidence. It's basically any evidence other than witness testimony.

E.g., the bloody knife with the defendant's fingerprints on it is circumstantial evidence that he stabbed the victim. It may not prove the case in itself ("a brick is not a wall"), but you add enough similar circumstantial evidence to the mix and you manage to convince the jury. This is basic law-school stuff.

If we're talking about piecing together the evolution of a species, such as humans, in the distant past, I don't see how you could have anything but circumstantial evidence.

--------------The resurrection of Jesus Christ is one of the most well documented events of antiquity. Barry Arrington, Jan 17, 2012.

Casey is a lawyer. He's a professional deceiver. He knows what circumstantial evidence is, and he also knows it's commonly regarded as weak.

Oh, I know Casey wouldn't hesitate to intentionally misuse a term to score points (at least in his own mind). I'm just not sure he's doing that here. He wouldn't be the first attorney I've seen equate circumstantial with weak. (And you have to keep in mind that he is pretty stupid.) I guess one of us is giving him too much credit one way or the other.

--------------The resurrection of Jesus Christ is one of the most well documented events of antiquity. Barry Arrington, Jan 17, 2012.

Also amusing that Casey, the lawyer, doesn't understand what circumstantial evidence is. "Circumstantial" is not synonymous with "weak." Cases can, and very often are, proven beyond a reasonable doubt through circumstantial evidence. It's basically any evidence other than witness testimony.

E.g., the bloody knife with the defendant's fingerprints on it is circumstantial evidence that he stabbed the victim. It may not prove the case in itself ("a brick is not a wall"), but you add enough similar circumstantial evidence to the mix and you manage to convince the jury. This is basic law-school stuff.

If we're talking about piecing together the evolution of a species, such as humans, in the distant past, I don't see how you could have anything but circumstantial evidence.

Venema's latter posts in the series discuss evidence that could count as weak, or circumstantial, evidence for common descent -- evidence such as high levels of human / ape genetic similarities. At most, however, this evidence shows circumstantial evidence for common ancestry. It says nothing about the information-generative abilities of random mutation and natural selection. Venema would have done well to heed Behe's advice in The Edge of Evolution that "modern Darwinists point to evidence of common descent and erroneously assume it to be evidence of the power of random mutation." In fact, if we factor into the analysis the possibility of common design of functional genetic programs, Venema's evidence doesn't even strongly point to common descent. But Venema ignores the possibility of common design.

Amusing that Casey, the lawyer, cites Behe, the molecular biologist on the power of random Mutation, then promptly sidesteps the inconvenient fact that Behe accepts common descent.

Although he managed to pass the low bar in California and possibly Washington, which is like the Arkansas of the northwest, Luskin has never "worked" as a lawyer, does not represent the DI or anyone as counsel and demonstrates the barest understanding of, well, anything.

If it weren't for the DI paying him in nickels his most frequently uttered phrase would be "May I take your order, please."

Not stupid? Casey????? Please, pull the other one!

p.s. That said, I've never known Luskin to be vicious like some of the other denizens of the DI. But, that's because viciousness requires cunning which Luskin lacks in spades. He's just a poor, dumb foot soldier. I wonder how many times in staff meetings Luskin blurts out, "I like bowling!"

Venema's latter posts in the series discuss evidence that could count as weak, or circumstantial, evidence for common descent -- evidence such as high levels of human / ape genetic similarities. At most, however, this evidence shows circumstantial evidence for common ancestry. It says nothing about the information-generative abilities of random mutation and natural selection. Venema would have done well to heed Behe's advice in The Edge of Evolution that "modern Darwinists point to evidence of common descent and erroneously assume it to be evidence of the power of random mutation." In fact, if we factor into the analysis the possibility of common design of functional genetic programs, Venema's evidence doesn't even strongly point to common descent. But Venema ignores the possibility of common design.

Amusing that Casey, the lawyer, cites Behe, the molecular biologist on the power of random Mutation, then promptly sidesteps the inconvenient fact that Behe accepts common descent.

Courtesy of this discussion I had just discovered the gem of Americana that is Thayer's opus major, and was about to spend my evening writing a parody of it featuring monobrows and unresolved sexuality, the whole pivoting on a witty pun on 'Mudville'.

Attorneys that are not stupid know that eyewitness testimony is the weakest, and that circumstantial evidence can be irrefutable.

Say DNA evidence in a rape case, as opposed to identification in a lineup.

Casey is not stupid. He avoided the Dover case, where a win would have been significant.

Casey was at the Dover trial, basically as a PR shill for the DI. I don't recall him being consulted by the Thomas More Law Center people, though he may have had some casual conversations with them. Mind you, I didn't develop a high regard for the TMLC crew, and they apparently weren't going to Casey for advice.

Attorneys that are not stupid know that eyewitness testimony is the weakest, and that circumstantial evidence can be irrefutable.

Say DNA evidence in a rape case, as opposed to identification in a lineup.

Casey is not stupid. He avoided the Dover case, where a win would have been significant.

Casey was at the Dover trial, basically as a PR shill for the DI. I don't recall him being consulted by the Thomas More Law Center people, though he may have had some casual conversations with them. Mind you, I didn't develop a high regard for the TMLC crew, and they apparently weren't going to Casey for advice.

My take is that Casey is the only true believer in the DI crowd. The rest of the them seem to be in it for the bucks or the culture war and know that their evidence is not that strong.

Casey was at the Dover trial, basically as a PR shill for the DI. I don't recall him being consulted by the Thomas More Law Center people, though he may have had some casual conversations with them. Mind you, I didn't develop a high regard for the TMLC crew, and they apparently weren't going to Casey for advice.

I recall the first (and only) time I met Casey was at UC San Diego when Jon Wells was giving a talk Casey's shadow ID club sponsored. That was also the first time I met you.

Casey was desperate to 1) have a copy of our anti-ID handout, and 2) learn the real-life identity of Nick Matzke. I provided the latter, but I don't remember who gave Casey the handout that we all were handing out to anyone who walked by.

He thought it was a real 'score.'

--------------"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

Casey was at the Dover trial, basically as a PR shill for the DI. I don't recall him being consulted by the Thomas More Law Center people, though he may have had some casual conversations with them. Mind you, I didn't develop a high regard for the TMLC crew, and they apparently weren't going to Casey for advice.

I recall the first (and only) time I met Casey was at UC San Diego when Jon Wells was giving a talk Casey's shadow ID club sponsored. That was also the first time I met you.

Casey was desperate to 1) have a copy of our anti-ID handout, and 2) learn the real-life identity of Nick Matzke. I provided the latter, but I don't remember who gave Casey the handout that we all were handing out to anyone who walked by.

Casey was at the Dover trial, basically as a PR shill for the DI. I don't recall him being consulted by the Thomas More Law Center people, though he may have had some casual conversations with them. Mind you, I didn't develop a high regard for the TMLC crew, and they apparently weren't going to Casey for advice.

I recall the first (and only) time I met Casey was at UC San Diego when Jon Wells was giving a talk Casey's shadow ID club sponsored. That was also the first time I met you.

Casey was desperate to 1) have a copy of our anti-ID handout, and 2) learn the real-life identity of Nick Matzke. I provided the latter, but I don't remember who gave Casey the handout that we all were handing out to anyone who walked by.

He thought it was a real 'score.'

That sneaky Nick Matzke hiding his identity by using his real name.

Actually, the handout in response to Wells was authored by Nick as "Nic Tamzek". Nick stopped using the pseudonym shortly after that, IIRC.

According to the DI, the butterfly is the new (cue radio voice) ICON OF INTELLIGENT DESIGN (/cue radio voice)!

Yes, the flagellum of the bacteria, let's face it, is not very photogenic. How about a nice butterfly? Ohhhhh, look at the wings, the eyes, the throax and the little hooky feet! Must have been DESIGNED because Charles Darwin couldn't make a butterfly!

DUH!

And which better scientists to decry the design of the butterfly and talk about all it's biological parts than Paul "I'm not a scientists nor do I play one on TV" Nelson and Ann "What, me science?" Gauger.

Seriously, I hope the DI realizes eventually that their ultimate mascot is the shark since they've jumped it so many times.